<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/24/2025 5:26 AM, Barksdale, Marvin
via License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CH2PR04MB65562FABB583B570E50D6272CE12A@CH2PR04MB6556.namprd04.prod.outlook.com">
<li style="font-family: "Aptos Display", "Aptos
Display_EmbeddedFont", "Aptos
Display_MSFontService", "Calibri Light",
"Helvetica Light", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div role="presentation" class="elementToProof">The <b>clinical
researchers we support</b> have strongly disagreed with the
premise that license language clarifying the applicability and
relevance of data / privacy policy to downstream users is not
valuable. Furthermore I do not see a clean parallel to the
sunsetted Intel license. The Intel language went as far as
stating that under "current" US law the subject software would
be export eligible, except for a specific list of countries.
For a number of reasons such as the proliferation of HIPAA
consent forms, as well as the misconceptions about open source
ai, many patients, researchers, and developers <b>mistakenly
believe</b> ... </div>
</li>
</blockquote>
<p>So your reason for including it is to correct a misunderstanding
of the law by lay adopters of the license. But does the paragraph
change anything about the licensor's liability? Isn't it still
just advisory without any legal effect? I'm not saying that's a
reason it can't be approved (that's up to OSI), I just think we
need to be clear about it's value and role.<br>
</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<p>Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>